Last week’s strategy: The Barnum Slide

Statements that feel specific but apply to everyone create false intimacy.

Anyone try it? Did you write a sentence that felt personal but was actually universal?

Did faces react?

This tension drives every energy policy debate.

Which energy source has killed the most people per unit of electricity produced?

1. Nuclear

2. Coal

3. Solar

4. Wind

Vote now.

Coal kills approximately 24.6 people per TWh of electricity produced.

That includes mining accidents, air pollution, respiratory disease.

Nuclear? 0.03 deaths per TWh. Even including Chernobyl and Fukushima.

OK, that one was easy. But here’s where it gets weird…

Source: Markandya & Wilkinson (2007) The Lancet; Our World in Data (2023)

Solar: 0.05 deaths per TWh. Wind: 0.04 deaths per TWh.

Both are higher than nuclear.

Rooftop installation falls. Manufacturing accidents. Mining for rare earth minerals.

The point: The energy source the public fears most (nuclear) is statistically the safest. The one they trust most (solar) is slightly more dangerous per kWh. Perception ≠ reality.

Source: Markandya & Wilkinson (2007); Sovacool et al. (2016) Journal of Cleaner Production

Kurzgesagt — In a Nutshell (~10 min). Spoiler: they conclude nuclear and renewables should be partners, not opponents.

If your gut can be wrong about something as basic as “which energy kills people”…

What else might you be wrong about?

Assumption: Germany’s Energiewende made it greener.

Reality: Germany’s CO₂ emissions barely decreased for a decade (2009–2019). Why? They shut down zero-carbon nuclear plants at the same time and temporarily burned more coal to fill the gap.

€500 billion. And for years, the carbon needle barely moved.

Source: Agora Energiewende Annual Review; Clean Energy Wire; Federal Environment Agency (UBA)

Assumption: Wind energy is fully “clean.”

Reality: A single wind turbine blade is longer than a Boeing 747 wing (up to 80m). Made of composite fiberglass. Currently cannot be economically recycled.

Thousands of blades are buried in landfills across the American Midwest every year.

The clean energy icon has a dirty secret at the end of its life.

Source: Bloomberg (2020) “Wind Turbine Blades Can’t Be Recycled”; Liu & Barlow (2017) Waste Management

Assumption: More solar = always better.

Reality: On sunny spring days, California produces so much solar that wholesale electricity prices go negative. The state literally pays Arizona and Nevada to absorb the excess.

Meanwhile, at 7pm when the sun sets, California must fire up gas plants at full blast to cover demand. This is the Duck Curve.

Source: CAISO (California ISO) market data; EIA reports on negative pricing

Assumption: Electric cars are always greener.

Reality: Hong Kong’s grid is ~70% fossil fuels (coal + natural gas). Only ~25% comes from Daya Bay nuclear imports.

An EV charged on Hong Kong’s grid produces roughly 100-120g CO₂/km. A fuel-efficient petrol hybrid? About 90-110g CO₂/km.

The car isn’t the whole story. The grid is. Clean the grid first, then EVs become truly green.

Source: HK Electric & CLP annual reports; IEA lifecycle assessments; HK Environment Bureau

Not to make you anti-renewable.

Not to say “nothing works.”

But to show you: the truth is complicated.

And complicated truths make better arguments.

Remember from last week? “Sustainable compared to what, measured how, ending where?”

• Nuclear looks terrifying if your boundary is “worst-case accident.” Looks safest if your boundary is “deaths per TWh over all time.”
• Solar looks perfect if you stop at the rooftop. Looks complicated if you include manufacturing, grid storage, and end-of-life disposal.
• Wind looks clean if you stop at generation. Looks messy if you include blade disposal.

Same data. Different boundaries. Completely different arguments.

For Hong Kong, only three matter in practice: Solar, Wind, and Waste-to-Energy.

Vox (~5 min) — The best visual explainer of why more solar doesn’t simply mean fewer problems.

Maria in San Diego installed rooftop solar in 2015. Her electricity bill dropped from $200/month to $12. She told everyone: “Solar pays for itself.”

Then San Diego Gas & Electric changed the rules. Time-of-use pricing meant Maria was selling power at midday — when it was worth almost nothing — and buying it back at peak evening rates.

Her savings dropped to $40/month. Her panels still worked perfectly. The economics didn’t.

Meanwhile, California was paying Arizona to take its excess solar power — negative wholesale prices. The grid couldn’t handle what it asked for.

Governor Schwarzenegger said “solar panels on every rooftop.” Nobody mentioned what happens when every rooftop turns on at the same time.

Sources: CAISO Duck Curve data; CPUC NEM 3.0 proceedings; San Diego Union-Tribune reporting

Klaus worked in the lignite mines of Schwarze Pumpe, Lausitz, for 30 years. His father mined there. His grandfather too. Three generations of brown coal.

The Energiewende shut his mine. The government promised retraining. Klaus was 55.

Five years later: 60% of retrained workers in the Lausitz region were unemployed or in worse-paying jobs. The town’s population halved. The local school closed. The pub closed.

And Germany’s CO₂ emissions? Barely changed for years — because Berlin simultaneously shut down zero-carbon nuclear plants and temporarily burned more coal to fill the gap.

Klaus lost his livelihood for a transition that, for a decade, didn’t even reduce emissions.

Sources: Agora Energiewende; IW Köln regional labor studies; Clean Energy Wire; UBA emissions data

Wind turbines in front of lignite power plants. Germany, 2019. Old and new, side by side.

The Henderson family in rural Ontario had a $120/month electricity bill in 2009. That year, Premier Dalton McGuinty signed the Green Energy Act. “We will create a new industry and thousands of jobs.”

Feed-in tariffs guaranteed solar producers 80 cents per kWh — when market price was 3–5 cents. Someone had to pay the difference. The Hendersons did.

By 2016, their bill was $250/month. The “Global Adjustment” charge — the hidden cost of renewable subsidies — was larger than the cost of actual electricity.

Ontario lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs (energy costs were one factor). In 2018, the governing Liberals won one seat. The worst electoral defeat in the province’s history.

Sources: Ontario Energy Board rate data; Ontario Auditor General (2015); Statistics Canada

None of them are anti-renewable.

All of them are anti-simplicity.

• California proves: timing and storage matter as much as generation.
• Germany proves: sequencing matters — don’t kill nuclear before renewables can replace it.
• Ontario proves: cost distribution matters — who pays for the transition?

The transition is necessary. The question is how to not destroy people along the way.

Castle Peak Power Station, Tuen Mun — one of the largest coal-fired plants in Asia.

In 2007, when the government proposed building another polluting facility in Tuen Mun, District Councillor Lung Shui-hing stood up:

“Why Tuen Mun again? The government is treating the district like a garbage dump where all the unwanted facilities are found.”

All 13 councillors voted unanimously against. They noted Tuen Mun already housed: Castle Peak Power Station, a recycling park, a steel mill, oil tanks, and a landfill.

Government officials later acknowledged that easterly winds — which carry pollutants away from the main urban areas — influenced site selection.

The pollution isn’t accidental. The location was chosen because the people living downwind were deemed less likely to complain.

Source: SCMP, August 18, 2007

Mrs Ho, 56, developed an airway allergy she attributes partly to Hong Kong’s air pollution. She described it to SCMP:

“I coughed uncontrollably, drawing odd stares and dirty looks from people around me on the street.”

She became a Greenpeace volunteer, helping attach air monitoring tubes across Hong Kong. Dr Loretta So Kit-ying, respiratory medicine specialist at Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, confirmed: “Nitrogen dioxide will cause irritation to the airways, leading to a range of respiratory diseases.”

In 2015, Tuen Mun recorded 395 hours of “high” or above air quality readings — the worst in Hong Kong for the second consecutive year.

Sources: SCMP, Victor Ting, July 19, 2019; SCMP, Ernest Kao, November 30, 2015 (Green Power data)

Prof Anthony Hedley (HKU School of Public Health): “Probably 100 per cent of the population is exposed, at unacceptable levels, to this environmental hazard.”

Sources: Clean Air Network / HKU (2024 Review); Hedley Environmental Index (hedleyindex.hku.hk)

Anita Tang (56) and her architect husband Stephen (62) installed solar panels at their home in Fairview Park, Yuen Long, in October 2018.

• Installation cost: HK$180,000
• Monthly earnings from CLP Feed-in Tariff: HK$2,500–3,000
• Expected payback: ~6 years

But approval took two months instead of two weeks. The supplier market was chaotic — Anita: “Some suppliers said they were registered, but we couldn’t find their address.”

Hong Kong targets 7.5%–10% renewables by 2035. The Tangs are doing their part. But village house owners like Newman Lau Man-choi in Clear Water Bay can only use half their rooftop — by regulation.

Sources: SCMP, Athena Chan, July 14, 2019; HKFP, December 25, 2018

HK’s biggest “clean” move was importing nuclear from Guangdong. The irony: the energy source the public fears most contributes the most to decarbonization.

HK’s offshore wind potential alone could generate 32% of the city’s electricity.

HK’s solar rooftop potential could generate another 16%.

Together: nearly half of Hong Kong’s electricity needs.

The government’s 2035 target? 7.5–10%.

And in 2024, CLP stated that Hong Kong’s clean energy future will be “mostly nuclear” — importing from Guangdong, not building local renewables.

The city with 1,100 km² chose to outsource its energy conscience.

Sources: HK RE potential estimates (EMSD); Energy Connects, August 2024 (CLP statement)

Fact + Human Story + Stakes = Spectacle

Don’t say: “Fossil fuels cause emissions.”

Say: “Mrs Ho coughs uncontrollably on the street and strangers give her dirty looks. She lives downwind from Castle Peak. You’re paying for cheap electricity with her lungs.”

Don’t say: “We need renewable energy mandates.”

Say: “Germany did it. California did it. Hong Kong says ‘too expensive.’ Is your child’s health too expensive?”

Don’t say: “Energy transitions are complex.”

Say: “Ontario rushed renewables. Electricity bills doubled. Factories closed. Workers lost jobs. The government was wiped out. One seat. Is that the transition you want?”

Don’t say: “We need reliable baseload power.”

Say: “Germany spent €500 billion on renewables. When the wind doesn’t blow, they import nuclear from France. Klaus lost his job, his pension, his town. The carbon needle barely moved.”

Always include your source. “Wait, what?” only works if it’s true.

Kurzgesagt “Can YOU Fix Climate Change?” (~15 min) — Watch for: who invented the “personal carbon footprint”?

PRO-CLIMATE personas:

• Environmentalist pushing for immediate coal phase-out
• Parent in Tuen Mun near power station (like Mr. Wong)
• Youth climate activist
• Renewable energy startup founder

PRO-DEVELOPMENT personas:

• CLP executive managing grid stability
• Factory owner worried about electricity costs
• Energy minister balancing competing demands
• Coal worker facing job uncertainty

Who are you? What’s your story? What do you fear losing?

PRO-CLIMATE says: “Coal is killing children. Close the plants. Klaus can retrain.”

PRO-DEVELOPMENT says: “Klaus is 55. He lost his pension. His town is dying. No one hired him. He voted for the far-right. Was the transition worth it?”

The real question: How do we transition justly — fast enough to save the planet, slow enough not to destroy communities?

Start Timer Reset Timer

People holding a warm cup of coffee rated strangers as more trustworthy than those holding iced drinks.

They had no idea the cup mattered.

This is Embodied Cognition (Williams & Bargh, 2008).

The body doesn’t just receive information — it shapes judgment.

• Physical warmth → social warmth
• Heaviness → seriousness
• Roughness → difficulty

The brain takes sensory shortcuts constantly.

The arguments that landed today weren’t abstract policy statements.

They made you feel something in your body.

Not “coal combustion produces particulate matter affecting respiratory health.”

But: “Mrs Ho coughs uncontrollably on the street. Strangers give her dirty looks. She doesn’t know how to explain that the air itself is making her sick.”

Not “energy transitions have economic costs.”

But: “Klaus is 55. His mine closed. His pension vanished. His town is dying.”

That’s sensory hijack. Body-first, logic second.

Make your audience physically uncomfortable — on purpose.

One image. One sentence. Body-first.

• Pros: Abundant sunlight; low operating costs; reduces electricity bills
• Cons: High initial installation costs; requires significant space; production variability due to weather
• Short-term Impact: Immediate reduction in carbon emissions and energy costs
• Long-term Impact: Enhances energy security and sustainability, but poses challenges for grid stability and storage solutions

The Duck Curve Problem: As solar capacity increases, midday generation floods the grid while evening demand spikes. The difference between midday minimum and evening peak creates the “duck” shape. California ISO documented this phenomenon extensively.

• Pros: Clean and renewable; potential for offshore installations
• Cons: Limited land availability; high installation and maintenance costs; marine and bird life impact
• Short-term Impact: Diversifies energy sources, reducing reliance on fossil fuels
• Long-term Impact: Steady energy supply if technological and environmental challenges addressed

Blade Disposal Problem: Turbine blades are made of composite fiberglass — strong, light, and nearly impossible to recycle economically. Average blade lifespan: 20-25 years. Tens of thousands will need replacement in the coming decade.

Hydropower: Reliable and consistent; low GHG emissions. But: ecosystem disruption, high construction costs, and essentially zero feasibility in Hong Kong due to geography.

Geothermal: Consistent and reliable; small land footprint. But: requires specific geological conditions Hong Kong lacks. Local project via EMSD is small-scale ground-source heat pumps, not power generation.

Biomass: Utilizes organic waste; reduces landfill. But: can lead to deforestation; emits pollutants during combustion; requires significant land and water.

Tidal/Wave: Predictable energy source; minimal visual impact. But: high installation costs; early-stage technology; impact on marine ecosystems. CityU research is exploring local potential.

Solar in HK: Utilizes rooftop and building façade space. Limited by Hong Kong’s dense urban environment — buildings shade each other. Government Feed-in Tariff (FiT) scheme pays up to HK$5/kWh for small installations.

Wind in HK: Offshore potential in South China Sea. CLP’s Hok Un wind turbine was a pilot. Challenges: typhoons, shipping lanes, cost.

Waste-to-Energy in HK: T-Park (sludge treatment, operational). I-Park (integrated waste management, under construction in Shek Kwu Chau). Addresses waste crisis while generating power.

Nuclear Import: Daya Bay Nuclear Power Station provides ~25% of Hong Kong’s electricity via CLP. This single contract is Hong Kong’s largest decarbonization achievement — and it’s not even “renewable” by most definitions.

Note: Energy data evolves rapidly. Always check for most recent reports. Regional and temporal variations are significant.